That would be hard to make work in a game of football. Utterly impossible across a city of a million. Requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement. You have to settle for a majority.
You're telling me 22 people can't decide on which person they trust enough to let ref? Can 11? If each team picks a ref, then those referees pick one to decide any disagreements, would you agree that that is a fair way to officiate the game?
And I never said the whole city had to agree on one person to decide all their problems, and that would be unworkable, anyway. In practice, it can be as granular as two people agreeing that any disagreement they have will be settled by this other third person. The key word there is agree. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is not a fair process.
That 2 wolves and a sheep thing is old. The wolves decide that one of them gets to own the sheep and sell part of it to the other.
As I said, requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement. You have to settle for a majority.
To put it in NAP terms, right now people have the right to vote for a government that makes laws. A lot of the problem with your approach is that you act like that right should be taken off them. Its their right and you don't have standing to take it off them.
On a more practical point, as I said about seat belts and I think you are now accepting, law sets a standard that people try to live up to. That's why if you remove the prohibition on racial or religious discrimination, it will come back.
I'm off to the pub - there is only so much of this excitement I can handle in 1 day.
